I agree with you.

But now tell to the leaving customers to stay again because the next show will be played using a new Digital System.
Go to the booth and turn on your DTS player.

Then, after the show, stand at the door as your patrons are leaving and ask "what did you think of this new digital sound?" I will bet you pounds to peanuts that almost all of them will either say that it was so much better than the other one (or some similar superlative... (sorry for the cut&paste!! )

So, I mean that customers will never realize what kind of sound system will be used; but I'm sure that a big percentage of them can hear what is "good" and what is "bad".

What do you think?

If you are running good digital sound and you are happy with the results AND your customers keep coming back, then that is all that matters my friend. You don't need me to justify the money you spent if that is what you are after.

Bobby and Steve, I think it is fair to say that 16-bit @ 44kHz digital was always considered the bare minimum for hi-fidelity sound. Once you start raising the resolution the comparisons with analog (SR or otherwise) soon become irrelevent. I feel that the sampling rate is a bigger issue than amplitude resolution (number of bits) because it affects the audio at all levels, not just primarily at the low level end of things. If I had to choose between increasing the sampling rate or the number of bits, I'd choose sampling rate every time.

------------------
Ray Derrick
President/Chief Engineer
Panalogic Corporation Sydney, Australia
Phone: 61 (0)2 9894 6655 Fax: 61 (0)2 9894 6935

 |  IP: Logged

I have worked live concert shows were the talent insists they know what the house sounds like although the are on stage, behind the speaker stacks. They will tell me to "increase eq on the guitar at 3k by 6db." As I stand at the console and with my hands resting on the leather arm rest, I ask, "How's that?" "Better, but kick it up a bit more." "How's that?" "Great; maybe back it off just a tad -- maybe split the difference." "Ok, how's that now?" "Perfect." Mind you, I haven't touched anything. Gives you some idea of how subjective it all is.

The real power of digital is on the marquee and the perception and expectation the public has of the quality of the sound in a digital theatre. Sure, there are a few "golden ears" out there (and a lot more who think they have 'em), but it's the general population that has to be wooed and satisfied since there are the ones who make a difference in the total grosses column of the box office report, not the one or two golden ears who sit in the theatre and think they can hear the difference between 16bit or 20bit. You and I may think we can here the difference between SRD and DTS compression ratios and which is better (DTS, of course) but we aren't paying the bills -- the other 1000 patrons who are in the theatre who CAN'T tell the difference or even care, are the one who have to perceive a significant difference. To that end I say, buy an extra subbass enclosure and let them feel the explosions in the pit of their stomachs and THAT'S when you'll hear them oooing and aaahing. It's the ooohs and aaahs that you need to get out of them; something you will rarely get by switching to between digital systems or even between digital and analog tracks for that matter. Should your SRD reader crap out and switch to SR, how many out of 1000 people do you think will even notice the difference (assuming of course a well aligned analog A-chain)? I bet some of those golden ears might even miss it. Thing is, a top-notch sound system shouldn't be calling attention to itself anyway.

I agree with you but I think that we are writing two different thing.
You are saying that normal people will recognize as "digital" a good SR sound. Ok, I'm agree.
I'm saying that normal people will recognize what of two systems sounds better instead. No matter of how they call it!
Let your audience see the same movie in SR and then in DTS (a Good SR and a Good DTS of course). I'm sure that a big percentage of them will say that the second show was superior.
No matter if they'll think that the second show was in analog and the first in digital: the big fact is that they'll recongnize what sounded better.
This test with a "action" movie of course: I believe that with comedy movie there are almost no differences between Digital and Analog sound.
And let ignore that people that think that surround FX are coming from noisy people waiting out of the theater...